My point is, the government is going about this the wrong way. You people who are still arguing hot and heavy in favor of gay marriage are still supporting discrimination, because you have flat out ignored those loving couples who have children together but are not married nor believe in marriage, yet have a loving home together. Should they be left out in the dark as well? Might I add that not all of the states in the union recognize a couple living together for so many years as being legally married. At least that isn't the case in NC. But, my point is, I have not heard any of the high and mighty here be a voice for any of those people either!

The thing is, the arugment has gone into a polarizing way where you're a homophobe if you don't agree with homosexuality, or your ignorant or whatever. You're just as ignorant for trying to down people's beliefs and belittling them in hopes of changing their views. That's a third grade way of going about doing things. It's just as intolerant. There would be absolutely no argument from either side if the government stayed out the marriage business like it should. If it was so gun-ho on giving benefits to couples who could procreate or wanting to adopt, then it should have just left it at that - benefits to those who are living together and have children together either through natural means or adoption. That way, nobody is left out. But, people will continue to argue and fight the wrong fight, and as long as it's about trying to convince somebody that their views are right or wrong, this country will never get passed this issue.

Very well said. I took out the first part though because its not really state sponsored benefits, at least in my research and opinion.

I tried a while back to see why government, and in particular the federal government, became involved in marriage in the first place. As best as I can tell it deals with basic record keeping by individual states followed by federal law for property/ownership rights relating to women (back when women didn’t have many rights) and for federal taxation of income and property. And finally for welfare entitlements starting in the 30’s.

Im nearly certain initial “dependency” type elections (your spouse is on your employer’s healthcare plan) all initially originated by goodwill from private corporations, much like how some corporations are starting to offer dependency rights for gay couples now-a-days. However, at some point initial goodwill morphed into public policy and became enforceable via federal law.

So now you have certain “rights” but more appropriately these things should be called certain laws/restrictions and penalties governing traditional marriage.

So to me the issue isn’t that gay people cant get married to the person they love, its that in order to be subjected to certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties we have to get married. But on top of that marriage is defined in a way to specifically exclude certain people/groups.

Ive mentioned here before that I think gays being denied the ability to have marriage laws imposed on their relationships is the biggest civil rights issue of our day. However, I think im changing my opinion. We should all have the right to elect “Traditional Marriage” laws be imposed on any type of relationship we are involved in with another competent adult(s). We should also be free to not elect those “rights”

Skinsguy you are so right in the unfairness couples face who choose not to wed which deny them from certain rules imposed on their relationship. Everyone should be able to elect the same set of rules for their relationship. It should be without restriction but otherwise left as it is now; as a purely contractual legal matter.
The only issue with all this is that the certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties all need to be modified. They were created for a specific set of principals and if those principles change you need to change these certain rights/laws/restrictions/penalties.

I am not sure how much thought you've put into the above paragraph but two things stick out to me immediately:

a) unmarried/single people pay more in taxes
b) less population less expenditure

With the way things are right now in this country you want more unmarried/single people pay more taxes and population growth to dwindle or even go into the negative.

If the government truly wants to have more money in it's coffers it should discourage marriage.

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.

Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.

Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

Not sure why really. Could be the age groups in those areas, it could be that more locals go to the other schools as compared to locals go to ECU. As for why my ignorant gay hating community voted yes? Well, it's because they are a ignorant gay hating community. Nothing else to say on that.

Guess I paid more attention in classes than some people.

A degree doesn't mean you aren't ignorant. You can be ignorant and still have a degree.

So people that dont believe in same sex marriage just need to take some classes at ECU and pay attention? Out of curiosity what was your major?

? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you actually disagree with my statement. It should be obvious by now I disagree with all the bible-thumpers wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage and its' 55% divorce rate.

I just thought your statement was funny, my bad wasnt trying to be a dick or anything.

I think most of us are the same way though. People are morons or whatever if they impose rules on us and those we agree with. But we all like it when they impose rules on those or for those we disagree with.

Well they said that in NC it would come down to a 50/50 vote and would be very close. Well it won with something like 62 or 64 % of the vote so you might be wishing for the wrong thing. I also lioke how you feel the need to call people who don't agree with gay marriage "homophobes". That's straight out of the left wing hand book. If they don't agree with you call them names.

Why else would they vote for ammendment 1? Gay marriage was already illegal but that wasn't enough so they took it a step furthered and stripped away the rights provided by Civil Unions. If it isn't homophobia I don't know what it is.

The thing that makes me sick though is that this is religion getting involved in government and this is the type of stuff that separation of church and state is suppose to stop.

I have not heard a single argument from another person against gay marriage that isn't based on religion and divine mandates.

The rest of the world is laughing at us while we keep beating our chest calling ourselves the land of the free. In the short term it makes me sick and pissed off but I have realized that it's getting within striking distance now and within 10 or 20 years that 39% vote will become the 61% if not more.

Remember the majority of people in the south were against interracial marriage all the way through the Civil Rights. Those people who "disagreed" with interracial marriage are now called racist. Just like the people who "disagree" with gay marriage if not now will eventually be referred to as homophobes. Just for reference think back to how people who supported separate but equal have been remembered.

Quote:

“all marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited.”

And this pattern has repeated itself through history. Women's sufferage, slavery, basic human rights for women like owning property. Heck at one point gay sex was illegal in 49 states. Majorities were against those same issues. Doesn't make them right.

__________________"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG

I dont think either of you guys are right. But i guess i think youre more wrong:

a) If youre subject to entitlements dont get married.

That is unless your spouse to be makes a lot of money relative to your income. Getting married in this situtation can cut your rate down significantly. Perhaps progressively in "half", but "progressively in half" isnt real in half

b) less population also means less revenue

A and B are arguable but i completely disagree with your last sentence.

Entitlement reform needs to change because it discourages marriage. 47% of us pay no income tax. 20 some percent pay a negative income tax (get money for showing up). 10-20% pay a negative income so high they effectively pay no payroll tax. If all these people were married they would loose out on a lot of loot.

Social security benefits straight up hook married people up. You never worked a day in your life, but your husband made tons and is subject to the full benefit amount? Cool, you get half of his straight up.

You should reconsider and reevaluate your thoughts. What part of what I said offends basic logic? Is it the fact that people who are single pay more in taxes than married people? You know, the tax law that requires two unmarried people to file separately and thus forfeit certain tax benefits afforded to married couples? Or is it the part where having less people means less spending on infrastructure, entitlement and various other general welfare such as student loans and educational grants?

Here's is a simple brain exercise that can help you sort out your thoughts. Ask yourself what would happen to this country's revenues and expenditures if:

a) You eliminate tax breaks for married couples.
b) You kill off 2.5% of all those over the age 65 and increase the infant mortality rate to 2.5%. Or if you wish just kill off 5% of the population.

I didn't read the whole thread but I live here in nc and the amendment 1 was about a lot more then gay marriage. That was just a front for it to pass. It had a lot to do with Medicaid for children and seniors. Also I guess if you're gf and bf it's ok to beat on each other because it's only domestic violence if you're married according to amendment 1. It's horrible and I hate that it passed

This whole thing is a shame. In 20 to 30 years we will be looking back at this ban and thinking it was ridiculous. Its crazy how history just continues to repeat itself, especially when it comes to rights.

I didn't read the whole thread but I live here in nc and the amendment 1 was about a lot more then gay marriage. That was just a front for it to pass. It had a lot to do with Medicaid for children and seniors. Also I guess if you're gf and bf it's ok to beat on each other because it's only domestic violence if you're married according to amendment 1. It's horrible and I hate that it passed

Correct. Most of these idiots don't even realize they've squashed rights for not only homosexuals, but for heterosexuals as well. Goodbye to civil unions and domestic partnerships between men and women.

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty

__________________ "So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty